State agency admonishes ‘condescending’ L.A. County judge for mistreating potential jurors

A California agency overseeing judges’ discipline publicly admonished a Los Angeles County judge Thursday, concluding that he mistreated several prospective jurors who were being vetted for a murder trial.

The Commission on Judicial Performance issued a 34-page admonishment of Superior Court Judge Edmund W. Clarke Jr., who has been on the bench for seven years and works at the downtown criminal courthouse.

“The misconduct demonstrates a pattern of discourteous and undignified treatment of jurors,” the commission wrote.

In a statement released by his attorney, Clarke noted that the commission’s punishment went beyond the recommendation of a three-person evidentiary panel that heard his case. The panel said there was only misconduct involving one juror instead of four. Clarke plans to ask the state supreme court to review the commission’s decision.

“The decision chills the spontaneous and human interaction that is part of jury selection,” Clarke’s statement said.

The allegations stem from a single day in May 2014 when Clark was presiding over jury selection for the type of case that even by the commission’s own account, typically proves difficult to seat a jury — a month-long, gang-related murder trial with four defendants. The commission said he belittled and mocked four jurors.

It started with the juror hardship form, which citizens can use to provide reasons why they cannot serve on a jury.

One woman wrote she was “having severe anxiety!!” and said she earned minimum wage as a waitress, had a wedding coming up and was experiencing anxiety while at the courthouse. When she complained to Clarke that his courtroom clerk was “disrespectful,” the judge cut her off and ordered her to wait outside until the end of the day.

When she returned, Clarke was “condescending” and criticized her for not approaching the clerk privately, the commission wrote. He told the woman, “If you came here thinking that this was going to be Disneyland and you were getting an E Ticket and have a good time, I’m afraid you have no sense of what is going on in this building.”

In between these two conversations, Clarke mistreated three more jurors, the commission wrote.

One woman claimed she didn’t speak or understand English well enough to be on a jury. Like the first juror, Clarke ordered her to wait outside until he was ready for her. He told her that he doubted her because her juror hardship form indicated that she spoke English, though the woman apparently changed it to show that she could not.

After more than an hour waiting, Clarke called her back in with a Spanish-language interpreter. Audibly sobbing in the courtroom, the woman told the judge she was ashamed that she didn’t speak English after 25 years in the country and then offered the following explanation:

“My father was German, may he rest in peace. And he had me naturalized as a citizen when I was 2 years old. And then he sent me to Mexico. And when I came back here, I was already a grownup.”

Clarke apologized and excused her, but the damage was done, the commission said.

“Judge Clarke has again violated his duty under the canons to be patient, dignified and courteous to those who appear before him by accusing [the juror] in open court of dishonesty in an intemperate and disparaging manner,” the commission concluded.

That same afternoon, two more prospective jurors indicated they could not afford to sit on the jury because of financial strains. The jurors wrote how much money they had in the bank and each amount was less than $50.

“It’s an impressive and convincing figure,” Clarke told one of the jurors, according to the commission.

“Thank you for not sharing it,” the juror replied.

“Well, every one of these lawyers spent more than that on lunch today,” he said.

“Great,” the juror sarcastically replied.

As soon as the juror exited the courtroom, the judge announced that she had listed her bank account balance as $25, an action that the commission found to be “manifestly discourteous and undignified.”

Clarke then needled a second juror who reported having $33 in the bank.

“You are putting [the previous juror] in the shade with that big account,” Clarke said, and then excused the juror. “Good luck on getting paid and being able to bring that number up a little bit better.”

The commission criticized Clarke’s attempt at humor.

“Public esteem for the judicial system is harmed when a judge mistreats and belittles jurors, uses humor at a juror’s expense, and retaliates against a juror for complaining about his clerk.”

This is the second time Clarke has been disciplined, the commission noted. In December 2013, he received an advisory letter for the way he spoke to a defendant.

The two incidents show that “Judge Clarke has shown a very limited appreciation of the impropriety of his conduct,” warranting the public admonition, the commission wrote.

Joseph.serna@latimes.com

For breaking California news, follow @JosephSerna on Twitter.